Different cameras used in the same place under the same conditions to take photos of the same subject. It is a real-life observation and not a systematic test but perfectly valid and shows differences between the machines.

Why we have to do the it's not valid you can't judge web-sized I'm much more clever than you dance every time someone posts a comparison on here is beyond me.

Different cameras used in the same place under the same conditions to take photos of the same subject. It is a real-life observation and not a systematic test but perfectly valid and shows differences between the machines.

Why we have to do the it's not valid you can't judge web-sized I'm much more clever than you dance every time someone posts a comparison on here is beyond me.

I think that's just the sound of popular/semi-technical forum-speak going on. Not necessarily someone trying to say they are more clever than the OP.

The thing is, the sentiment is accurate: What the OP has shown doesn't really tell us anything-- except for those two shots.

Anecdotal evidence is valid and worth something-- but since subjective measures are high in anecdotal tests, and potential for confusion about what is causing what-- more objective, controlled tests are more likely to convince a broader group of people of what you're seeing. And anecdotal evidence from a small sample (two photos, 1 x camera) is even harder to evaluate.

I shared it this way to just grab each camera and shoot at the same thing(/person/whatever) with similar lighting.

Its more for those interested in the performance (given the lens aperture differences) of each in the circumstance of using full reach, SAME lighting (although she has her face bend down to the computer screen in the LX7 shot) and seeing how each camera behaved (i.e. what it chose to use for the shot).

What I see is that the stabilization in the RX100 is not close to being as good as that of the LX7. However, iso 1600 looks relatively nice compared to the chosen ISO from the LX7. I used the widest apertures, to see how well they both do in lower lighting when that f4.9 comes into play versus the F2.3.

I thought it was fun to see what they both did under similar circumstances.

BTW, anyone want something done, please just ask. I am happy to shoot something that you find more valuable if you like.

As a longtime LX3 and LX5 user I've had to adjust to the relatively "slow" apertures offered by the RX100. However the Sony JPEG's look better, especially skin tone reproduction. That is my major complaint with most Panasonic cams - I don't know how to describe it but light colored skin often looks plasticky/waxy out of the LX3 and LX5.

However, the LX5 offers more DOF and the close focus performance and better stabilization is excellent for basic food photography or small products. Both cams are excellent but I tend to use the RX100 more simply because it's the new toy of the moment, and more pocketable.

Different cameras used in the same place under the same conditions to take photos of the same subject. It is a real-life observation and not a systematic test but perfectly valid and shows differences between the machines.
Then the word TEST should not be used in the title.
Comparison, would be a better fit, or "Just some shots"

If you've got any time this weekend some side by side shots would be very interesting to see, things like wide shots showing the difference in FoV, maybe some shots in tough lighting to see differences in dynamic range, some distant landscape shots to show how much detail each can render.

Also some shots of a close subject with the lens wide open at various focal lengths would be interesting to see as well. How the subject isolation and bokeh quality differ from larger sensor vs faster lens

Certainly doesn't have to be in depth tripod work, just handheld on the back patio would be fine if the composition is basically the same and all

I prefer my RX100 over my LX5 but part of me is still pretty darn curious about the LX7 and how it compares

DavidWEGS wrote:
What I see is that the stabilization in the RX100 is not close to being as good as that of the LX7.

I wonder how much of that is due to the higher resolution of the Sony? Scale it down to ~9MP like the LX7 and it's likely less obvious. To my eyes, even though there is camera/subject movement in the Sony image, it still has more detail.

edl415 wrote:
David I agree with your observations above.

As a longtime LX3 and LX5 user I've had to adjust to the relatively "slow" apertures offered by the RX100. However the Sony JPEG's look better, especially skin tone reproduction. That is my major complaint with most Panasonic cams - I don't know how to describe it but light colored skin often looks plasticky/waxy out of the LX3 and LX5.

Totally agree about Panasonic's crappy Jpeg rendering. I will only shoot the LX3 in RAW. IMO, Panasonic is trying too hard to preserve every mid tone possible, resulting in very flat, subdued, muted ashen tones that looks like 2002 digital output when everyone was too afraid to bully digital files in post. It looks like they're lifting the shadows and setting highlight recovery to 100%... Once I got the hang of Silkypix, I actually got great results with it using some of the film emulations that really boosted the tone curve contrast and color saturation. My GF uses the LX3 in Jpeg mode... I run the files through LR and use an aggressive S tone curve and am usually able to improve skin tone and overall contrast/saturation considerably.

This is kinda what I was thinking, although the RX seem to be about 1/3 under exposing SOOC. So perhaps more like a stop. But that is only on the wide end, on the long end (and along the way to the long end), the gap is a little more (f2.3 vs. f4.9).

I will play with them both and post some stuff again later, although everything I am seeing tells me that the RX is a better choice for detail, color and outright resolving power, while the LX7 does low light better in all circumstances due to its faster lens on the long end, and the IS/VR works much better.

Here is what I will attempt today. Handheld and same settings for :-

Landscape; portrait; macro.

For some lowlight, I will use Av to show what you can expect from both in the same situations.

Please don't expect a DPR or IR type review/test, just a gearhead playing type thing.